THE IMPACT OF
MILITARY POLICE INITIAL ENTRY TRAINING ON THE MORAL JUDGMENT OF SOLDIERS

Chaplain (Major)
Kenneth R. Williams

As with every values-based organization, the United
States Army expects the member of its ranks to conduct themselves and make decisions
in ways that are consistent with its core values. From entrance into initial
entry training (IET) the Army provides training to ensure that soldiers know,
understand, and practice its moral code. That moral code is embodied in the
Soldier’s Creed, the Warrior Ethos, the Army Core Values, the law of land
warfare, and the various regulations that require soldiers to conduct themselves
with justice and respect to others.

Army codified its values in 1994 and the Soldiers Creed
in 2003.

The Army defined these
core values as follows:

Loyalty - Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your
unit and other Soldiers.

Duty – Fulfill
your obligations.

Respect –
Treat people as they should be treated.

Selfless
service - Put
the welfare of the Nation, the Army and your subordinates before your own.

The Army expects
soldiers to practice the Soldiers’ Creed which states:

I am an American
Soldier.

I am a Warrior and a member of a team.

I serve the people of the United States and

live the Army Values.

I will always
place the mission first.

I will never
accept defeat.

I will never
quit.

I will never
leave a fallen comrade.

I am disciplined, physically and mentally
tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.

I always maintain my arms, my equipment and
myself.

I am an expert and I am a professional.

I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy
the enemies of the United
States of America in close combat.

I am a guardian of freedom and the American
way of life.

I am an American Soldier. (U.S. Army, 2006,
p. 4-10)

The Warrior Ethos is printed in bold above.

The Army, as well as all the Armed Services, receives its
members from all walks of life and who have a variety of family, cultural, and
socio-economic backgrounds. The Army engages in the process of soldierization to ensure that soldiers’
behavior reflects the Army and the national values. Soldierization is the
process by which civilians are transformed into soldiers. This soldierization
process includes physical, mental, military, and moral aspects. The elements of
the Army’s moral code permeate all aspects of IET. The intent is that upon
graduation, soldiers will exemplify this moral code.

The Army Research
Institute report on the Warrior Ethos states,

It is clear that Soldiers immediately recognize [the
Warrior Ethos] when such historical deeds are described to them. However, the
average Soldier is not continually exposed to conditions within which Warrior
Ethos is clearly manifested and do not frequently experience the conditions
that foster Warrior Ethos. This is the case whether they are in garrison or in
a combat situation. There is a need and an opportunity to develop training
curricula which foster the development and sustainment of Warrior Ethos. (Army
Research Institute, 2004, p. 3)

The preceding
statement indicates a need to develop effective training to ensure that
soldiers conduct themselves according to the Army’s moral code. One essential
element of training development is training assessment and evaluation.

This paper summarizes a study that explored the impact
of MP IET on the moral judgment and moral development of MP soldiers. This
paper is organized into five sections: (a) a discussion of background of the
study, (b) a discussion of the research methods; (c) a summary of the results,
(d) an interpretation of the results, and (e) a discussion of recommendations
for character education in IET.

BACKGROUND

Even with extensive training there have been moral
lapses and failures.A survey of reports
of investigations obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, 2005)
shows over 100 investigations of war crimes committed by American military
personnel. These crimes range from theft to aggravated assault to torture and
to rape and murder. The appearance is that the Army must do a better job of
moral education in training at all levels, especially in Initial Entry Training
(IET) (Kilner, 2004, 2005). However, it is not only the major incidents of
moral failures that are of concern. Of major concern are the daily violations
of the Army’s moral code. Such violations include theft, sexual harassment,
fraternization, and assault.

The concern for character education and moral
development must not only focus on the issue of moral decline but must also
focus on preparing soldiers to live in a just and democratic society (Lapsley
& Narvaez, 2006, p. 258). Soldiers must develop the ability to flourish
themselves as well as act to enable others to flourish. Daily life is filled
with moral choices and decisions. Training must prepare soldiers for such a
life. The Army desires to prepare soldiers first of all to fight and win the
nations wars and second to serve in humanitarian causes at home and abroad.
Therefore, a key outcome of moral and character education should be to prepare
soldiers for community service, for living a life of fairness and justice, and
for entering the communities of which they live and being an example.

The main focus of
training, of course, is that soldiers are prepared to fight and win the nations
wars. One key element of preparing for battle is that soldiers fight justly
according to the Army’s moral code. In 2004, the Army Research Institute (2004)
commissioned a study the purpose of which was “to refine and operationalize the
2003 definition of Warrior Ethos and to develop and examine means for its
inculcation into the Army” (Army Research Institute, 2004, p. vii). The
research team followed a process of (a) listing “values-based attributes
exemplified by a soldier who demonstrates Warrior Ethos,” (b) describing
specific actions that would be produced by such attributes, and (c) describing
barriers to performing actions that reflect the Warrior Ethos (Army Research
Institute, 2004, p. vii). Each of 9 battle drills were analyzed using this
process in order to create specific actions reflective of the Warrior Ethos and
in order to develop training that would encourage these actions.

Seven attributes
were derived from analyzing the Warrior Ethos: perseverance, ability to set
priorities, ability to make tradeoffs, ability to adapt, ability to accept
responsibility for others, ability to accept dependence on others, motivated by
a higher calling (Army Research Institute, 2004, p. 10). Using the Army’s list
of Warrior Drills, (Army Study Guide, 2004), drills were selected that would
best inculcate the Warrior Ethos. The following is a list of the drills:

The design and
assessment of the process described above is based on the learning theories of
several theorists, according to the Army Research Institute study. According to
Bloom et al. (as cited in Army Research Institute, 2004) learning occurs on
several levels (cognitive, psychomotor, and affective) which must be addressed
for effective learning. Rogers
(as cited in Army Research Institute, 2004) emphasized experiential learning,
i.e., active participation in the learning process. Lewin (as cited in Army
Research Institute, 2004) directed attention to creating an environment that is
conducive to learning. Elements of such an environment include relational
interdependence and task interdependence. Bandura (as cited in Army Research
Institute, 2004) promoted 2 key ingredients in learning: self-efficacy (the
influence of one’s beliefs about personal capabilities) and modeling (the
observation of a valued example). Army training is highly experiential; filled
with practical exercise, interaction, and field training; emphasizes command
(organizational) climate; incorporates rehearsal of real-world activities;
pursues development of competence and confidence; demands that leaders set the
example; and emphasizes learning on a variety of levels.

Recently there has been heightened interest in character
education within the Army. There has been much concern of late regarding the
decline of moral character among junior soldiers, that is, those who are currently
enlisting in the Army. There has been much discussion about what the Army is going
to do about this apparent moral decline. The Army recently established two
centers for moral education. The U.S. Army Chief of Chaplains initiated a
Chaplain Symposium on military ethics. Recently, interest in moral education
has resulted in new programs such as the character education program at I Corps
at Fort Lewis (Van Dyken, 2008). But again, how do we know that these programs
will work?

The Army expects in deployment or in garrison that
soldiers live and practice its moral code. From the beginning of Initial Entry Training
(IET), soldiers are taught this moral code. They hear it, memorize it, and
recite it. Soldiers are corrected based on the code.The code is explained and reinforced.When soldiers graduate from IET, they can
recite the code and define the code.But
the real question is can they, or rather will they, live the code?

The problem is that there is very little empirical research
on the effectiveness of character education and moral education within the
Army. There is very little research to inform and address the seeming decline
in moral character, the effectiveness of the soldierization process, and the
preparation for just conduct in war and civic life. This paper summarizes a
study that was conducted to address such an absence of research.

RESEARCH METHOD

Purpose and Description

The study involved
a mixed methods research project designed to determine the effects of MP IET on
soldiers’ moral judgment. The purpose of the study was three-fold:

1. To determine
the initial state of the moral judgment of IET soldiers who are entering training
to serve as Military Police (MP) soldiers, as described by the Defining Issues
Test (DIT).

2. To determine
the nature of any change in MP IET soldiers’ moral judgment that may occur
throughout the course of IET, as described by the Defining Issues Test (DIT).

3. To determine
the key factors, in the eyes of the soldiers, that account for the change or
the lack of change in MP IET soldiers’ moral judgment.

The study employed a concurrent, mixed methods process
in order to determine possible changes in soldiers’ moral judgment and key
influencing factors on changes as reported by the soldiers themselves.
Participants in the study were soldiers in Military Police (MP) IET. The
quantitative method involved the administration of the Defining Issues Test (DIT)
at the start and the conclusion of MP IET. Descriptive and inferential
statistical analyses were conducted to determine initial and subsequent levels
of moral development. A description of the DIT will be discussed below.

The qualitative element of the study involved the use of
focus groups of MP IET soldiers who were within one week of graduation. The
focus group discussions centered on soldiers’ perceptions on positive and
negative changes in their moral values and moral behavior, as well as their perceptions
of the key influencing factors on those changes.

Collection of Quantitative Data

Quantitative data was collected through the
administration of the DIT in a pretest-posttest format. Soldiers in MP IET
completed the DIT within the first week of starting training and during the
last week of training, a span of 19 weeks. The scores of the pretest and the
posttest were analyzed using a paired t-test
to determine the change in scores at the start of MP IET and at the conclusion
of MP IET. A paired t-test compares
the pretest and posttest scores of each individual to himself or herself.This makes the paired t-test a more accurate method of analysis than comparing the
average scores of the entire sample (Aczel & Sounderpandian, 2006). Scores
were analyzed according to overall scores, by age, by gender, and by
educational level. This paper will focus only on the overall scores.

The nature of the DIT. The DIT is a paper-and-pencil
assessment of moral judgment based on the theories of Lawrence Kohlberg and
developed by James Rest and his associates. The DIT presents five ethical
dilemmas and asks participants to rate and rank 12 issues related to the
dilemma. The DIT analyzes the participant’s rating and ranking of the solutions
to the dilemmas by categorizing them into three schemas – Personal Interest,
Maintaining Norms, and Postconventional reasoning. A participant’s score on a
particular schema represents the percentage of selected items that follow the
respective schema. Schemas are closely related to Kohlberg’s stages of moral
judgment and describe a person’s conduct within a just society. Therefore, the
DIT measures and describes a person’s development and understanding of the
principles of social justice (Bebeau & Thoma, 2003).

The Personal Interest schema is focused on factors that
are directly related to the self. The right thing to do is determined by what
is in the best interest of the individual. Rules are followed when they are in
the immediate interest of the individual. Right, justice, and fairness is
determined by an equal exchange and mutual interaction in interpersonal
relationships. People who function in the Personal Interest schema see morality
as fulfilling one’s role, being trustworthy, loyal, respectful, and thankful.
The motivation for moral action for those at this level of moral development is
to ensure that self is cared for, that one fulfills the Golden Rule, and that
one fulfills the expectations of oneself and others.

Society-wide scope
– A successful society requires that people not only engage in positive
relationships with family and friends but also with lesser-known and unknown
people, even those with whom they may have conflict.

Uniform,
categorical application – A successful society requires that laws, order, and
norms apply to all citizens equally. All must abide by the law as well as be
protected by the law.

Partial
reciprocation – A successful society requires that people provide mutual
support to one another according to one’s socioeconomic position.

Orientation toward
duty – Maintaining norms is about doing one’s duty to and for the authorities.
“In an organized society, there are chains of command; that is there are
hierarchical role structures … One must obey authorities, not necessarily out
of respect for the personal qualities of the authority, but out of respect for
the social system” (Rest, et al., 1999, p. 38).

The
Postconventional schema is characterized by the assertion that ideals that have
the ability to be shared by the members of a society formed the foundation of
human rights and duties. These shared ideals and values may be discussed,
argued, and adapted to the contemporary environment (Rest, et al., 1999, p.
41). The key elements of Postconventional moral thinking are:

Primacy of moral
criteria – “[L]aws, roles, code, and contracts are all social arrangements that
can be set up in a variety of ways” (Rest, et al., 1999, p. 41). Social norms
are flexible, adaptable, and relative to the current situation. The maintaining
norms schema adheres to order and rules that are unchangeable and unalterable
since these rules hold society together and prevent anarchy. Postconventional
thinking adapts rules and laws when they no longer serve a moral purpose.
Therefore, the basis of human rights and duties are based in moral intent or
purpose not on the rule of law. Maintaining Norms is the letter of the law.
Postconventional thinking is the intent of the law.

Appealing to an
ideal – Postconventional moral thinking does not define what one is against.
Instead it focuses on the values and ideals that can unite the various people
of a society together in harmonious relationships.

Sharable ideals –
The ideals and values that unite people of a society must have the ability of
being share by all. They are not values and ideals that are particular to one
segment of the society.

“Salability is tested by the
ability to justify an act or practice to those whose participation is expected.
By a justification, one is arguing that an act is not self-serving at the
expense of others, that the act respects others, serves group goals, furthers
cooperation and the common good, or is consistent with acceptable policy and
previously agreed-upon principles and ideals” (Rest, et al., 1999, p. 42).

Full reciprocity –
The maintaining norms schema emphasized partial reciprocity – that the support
that one gives and receives from society is based on one’s socioeconomic
status. In contrast, Postconventional thinking practices full reciprocity –
that the laws and norms of the society may be biased toward some and against
others. To distinguish between these two schemas,

A major difference between the
maintaining norms schema and the postconventional schema is how each attempts
to establish consensus: the strategy of the maintaining norms schema is to gain
consensus by appealing to established practice and existing authority; in
contrast, the strategy of the postconventional schema is to gain consensus by
appealing to ideals and logical coherence. (Rest, et al., 1999, p. 42).

The N2 score is a new
index, based on the Postconventional score (P-score),
that is an attempt to determine more accurately Postconventional thinking (Thoma,
2006). Participants’ Postconventional scores were also analyzed by means of the
N2 score. The N2 Score adjusts the P-score
according to the respondent’s ability to distinguish between Postconventional
moral judgment and the other schemas. If the respondent rates Postconventional
items as more valuable than Maintain Norms and Personal Interest, then the N2
Score is increased. If Postconventional items are not rated as more valuable
than Maintain Norms and Personal Interest items, then the N2 Score is
decreased. The N2 Score is more effective in identifying Postconventional moral
judgment among older and more educated people since that population tends to
have higher moral development and the N2 Score focuses on distinguishing higher
level moral thinking.

The DIT has been used in a variety of settings and with
a variety of professionals. It is considered highly valid and accurate in
measuring moral judgment (King & Mayhew, 2002; Bebeau, 2002). While the
dilemmas presented are not military in nature, they are considered common to
human experience and are able to provide an accurate basis for moral judgment.

Collection of Qualitative Data

Qualitative data consisted of the perceptions of participants regarding
changes in moral thinking, values, and behavior as well as influencing factors.
Qualitative data were collected through the use of four focus groups of 10
soldiers each. Participants were within the last week of MP IET. The author
facilitated the focus groups using a series of discussion questions. The
questions were: (1) In what ways have your values changed since you entered the
Army? (2) Within IET who or what has had the greatest impact on your values?
Why? (3) In your opinion, to what extent does the Army live its values? (4)
What has training in Army values been like? (5) What is your most memorable
experience of a cadre member displaying either an Army value or the opposite of
an Army value? (6) What is the most significant lesson that your drill
sergeants have taught you about being moral or making moral decisions? (7) What
is the most important factor or value when you are making a moral decision?

The focus group sessions were recorded using a digital
recorder. The recordings were transcribed into text. The text was analyzed
using qualitative content analysis. Qualitative content analysis was preferred
over a quantitative content analysis since the researcher was more interested
in the relationships of the influencing factors and perceived changes rather
than simply analyzing the frequency of responses. The qualitative content
analysis provided the researcher with significant descriptions of moral changes
and influences from the soldiers’ point of view.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

This article will
report on the following research questions and their corresponding hypotheses:

1. Are there
changes in the moral judgment scores of MP IET soldiers at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, from the
beginning to the conclusion of IET? This question will explore changes in moral
judgment schemas (stages).

Null Hypothesis 1:
There will be no change in the moral judgment scores in MP IET soldiers from
the beginning to the conclusion of MP IET with respect to schema (stage)
scores.

Alternative
Hypothesis 1a: There will be a decrease in personal-interest score.

Alternative
Hypothesis 1b: There will be an increase in personal-interest score.

Alternative
Hypothesis 1c: There will be a decrease in maintaining norms score.

Alternative
Hypothesis 1d: There will be an increase in maintaining norms score.

Alternative
Hypothesis 1e: There will be a decrease in postconventional score.

Alternative
Hypothesis 1f: There will be an increase in postconventional score.

5. What factors do
MP IET soldiers identify as having a positive or negative effect on their moral
development?

Null Hypothesis 5:
There will be no factors identified as having either a positive or negative effect
on moral development.

Alternative
Hypothesis 5: IET soldiers will identify the example of their drill sergeant as
the most influential factor, either positive or negative, of their moral
development.

Note: Research questions 2 through 4 involved age,
gender, and educational level and will not be discussed in this paper.

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

This section reports the results of research that was
gathered using the methods described in the previous section. Implications of
the results, as well as recommendations will be discussed in the following
section.

The class of MP soldiers that were the subject of this
study included 220 soldiers at the beginning of training. Thirty soldiers
declined to participate in the study. Therefore, 190 soldiers completed the
pretest DIT. Through attrition or injury over the course of 19 weeks, the class
decreased in size. The posttest was completed by 167 soldiers. Through the
scoring process of the DIT, some participants were purged due to extreme
inconsistencies in their scores. As a result of purging, the scores of 19
soldiers were eliminated from the pretest and 34 from the posttest. This
resulted in 171 pretest scores and 134 posttest scores after purging. A
comparison of pretest and posttest scores resulted in a total of 120 matched
pairs of scores. The matched pairs were analyzed for the overall comparison of
pretest-posttest scores.

The mean age of
the sample at pretest was 20.8 and at posttest was 21.2. The matched pairs
consisted of 28 females and 92 males. Table 1 displays the descriptive
statistics for the matched pair sample.

The results of
this research are reported in two general sections: quantitative data and
qualitative data. The quantitative data will involve the analysis of the
pretest and posttest scores of the Defining Issues Test (DIT) across the sample
as a whole. The qualitative data will involve a quantitative content analysis
of the texts of four focus groups of Military Police Initial Entry Training
(IET) soldiers.

Quantitative Data

Paired t-test Pretest-Posttest Results

The scope and
parameters of this article do not allow for detailed reporting of statistical
analysis. Therefore, a discussion of quantitative results will be brief. The
analysis of the matched pairs of pretest-posttest scores revealed no
significant differences in scores among the four variables of types of moral
judgment. There were no significant increases or decreases in Personal
Interest, Maintain Norms, Postconventional, or N2 scores between the pretest
and the posttest. On both the pretest and the posttest, the scores for maintain
norms were approximately 42 percent, for postconventional approximately 24
percent, and for personal interest approximately 28 percent. The predominant
schema of moral judgment for this sample at the start and at the conclusion of
MP IET was maintain norms, a rules-based approach to moral judgment. This
sample was more likely to act in ways to benefit self than on principles of
justice and fairness. This indicates that on the whole, there were no
statistically significant differences among soldiers in moral judgment as a
result of participation in MP IET.

Additional
Quantitative Data

The study also analyzed data regarding gender, age, and
educational level. Norms for the DIT in the areas of age and educational level
reveal a positive association of increased age and higher education level with
higher moral judgment. In other words, the older one is and the higher level of
education one has attained, the more likely one is to make moral judgments
based using Postconventional reasoning. However, the analysis of the results of
this study revealed no statistically significant differences between ages and
educational levels on either the pretest or the posttest.

Regarding gender, there were no statistically
significant results of change in moral judgment by males or females when
comparing the results of the pretest and the posttest scores. In other words,
the pretest and posttest scores of males showed no change.And the female pretest and posttest scores of
females showed no change. However, the scores of females and the scores of
males on both the pretest and the posttest were significantly different.Females scored significantly higher in
Postconventional reasoning at the start of MP IET and at the conclusion of MP
IET. Research shows that females tend to identify more easily with others,
showing the moral emotions of empathy and sympathy, than males. Moral emotion
and the ability to take the role of others are key aspects of Postconventional
reasoning.

Qualitative Data

The qualitative content analysis identified four main
areas of positive change based on the perceptions of the soldiers – decision
making, individual values, interpersonal relationships, and leading. The
elements of positive change are shown in Figure 1.

The qualitative results
revealed four main factors that soldiers stated had influenced the positive changes
– training events, training content, peers, and leaders, with the latter being
most influential. The influencing factors are shown in Figure 2. Additionally,
the specific factors regarding leaders are shown in Figure 3.

The quantitative results revealed that there were no
statistically significant differences or changes between the pretest and
posttest DIT scores. The soldiers’ primary schema for moral judgment at the
start and at the conclusion of MP IET was the Maintain Norms schema. The results
of the schema scores for the group revealed that Maintain Norms was 42 percent,
Personal Interest was at 28 percent, and Postconventional was at 24 percent.

Qualitative results identified significant positive
changes which included the development of personal values, decision making
processes, and relationships with others. Key influencing factors for positive
change included swift, fair correction; relating to diversity of peers; and the
relationship with and mentorship of leaders. Key leader actions for positive
change included integrating discussion of real world situations, developing a
leader-follower relationship, setting a positive example, and holding soldiers
accountable for learning and behavior.

Qualitative results identified significant negative
changes. Negative changes were the elimination of personal decision making,
development of distrust toward others, and decrease in personal morals.
Negative influences included the lack of practical application of values, thesuperficial memorization of
values, and the lack of positive leadership, specifically, reinforcement;
correction that was fair and respectful; a poor example; extreme strictness;
and lack of practical application.

INTERPRETATION OF
RESULTS

Quantitative

There was no statistically significant change in the
pretest and posttest scores on any of the schemas. The primary schema of moral
judgment was Maintaining Norms at 42 percent at both the start and the
conclusion of MP IET. This means that soldiers tended to follow a rules-based approach
to moral decision making both at the start and at the conclusion of MP IET.
Soldiers did not increase in Postconventional moral judgment during their
training. They did not develop an understanding of the principles behind the
rules. While the Army may initially desire that soldiers strictly adhere to the
rules, at some point, particularly with the transformation of the Army and the
move from traditional warfare to unconventional warfare with a fluid
battlefield, the Army needs to consider moral education that will produce
soldiers who have the ability to adapt to ethical principles based on the
current situation rather than simply following the rules which may not apply to
the contemporary operating environment.

Qualitative

The results of the qualitative content analysis revealed
mixed and conflicting changes and factors. Significant positive and negative
changes and influencing factors were identified leading to the conclusion that
much of the positive elements were cancelled or mitigated by the negative. Analysis
revealed four key areas of influencing factors – training content, training,
events, peers, and leaders, with the latter having the greatest impact. According
to the participants, the most effective leaders engaged in respectful
correction, provided regular feedback on soldiers’ performance, engaged in open
discussion, practiced correction that was fair and just, and integrated values
into daily life.

Best practices are respectful correction, feedback on
performance, just and fair correction, integration of values into daily life,
working with peers of diverse backgrounds, incorporating values into training
events, extreme control hinders development. However, it is significant that
the focus groups’ discussion of positive influences did not list any specifically
moral content or exercises.Also,
negative influences included a lack of practical application of values and
standards, a lack of real world situations, limited discussion of values, and a
focus on memorization of values only.

Additionally, the negative influence of leaders included
lack of reinforcement of, and incentive to live, the Army values. Some leaders
were apathetic, impatient, and a poor example of the Army values. These
negative leaders degraded the soldiers and did not correct violations of the
Army values.

These results indicate that changes in behavior have
occurred. However, the changes are not directly related to moral judgment. Additionally,
the motivation for moral action seems to be sabotaged by the negative influencing
factors, especially those of the leadership category. Therefore, a deep-seated
change in moral character, moral motivation, moral sensitivity, and moral
judgment is questionable. What is most likely is a superficial awareness of the
Army standards and values, i.e., that soldiers know what to do, according to
the Army, but are not necessarily motivated to do it. More will be said about
this below.

Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative

The following section will discuss the possible reasons
for an apparent inconsistency between the quantitative and qualitative results,
i.e., the focus groups expressed personal change but the results of the DIT reveal
no change.

Nature of the DIT

DIT is assessment of moral judgment. The schemas that
the DIT addresses are not associated with specific values. The schemas are ways
of approaching moral dilemmas. Therefore it is possible that one may not change
in moral judgment but adopt new values. Moral judgment is but one element of
moral identity and moral behavior. Other elements of moral identity include the
self, and opportunities for application. Therefore, the lack of change in moral
judgment does not indicate that soldiers were not influenced in other ways as a
result of MP IET. More will be said later about moral identity.

The DIT is associated more with macromorality than micromorality.
Rest and his associates state that “Macromorality concerns the “formal
structures of society that are involved in making cooperation possible at a
society level” (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999, p. 2). Therefore,
macromorality has to do with how a society ensures basic human rights and
justice. Rest and his associates continue with “Micromorality concerns the
developing relationships with particular others, and with an individuals’
creating consistent virtues with him- or herself throughout everyday life”
(Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999, p. 2). Therefore, micromorality has
to do with how individuals relate to one another in a mutually beneficial
relationship. This dichotomy allows for the possibility that people may change
in micromorality and remain unaltered in macromorality, and vice versa.
Soldiers may conduct themselves in one way toward their peers and in a
different way toward society as a whole. Change in moral judgment occurs as
people learn “macromoral conceptions of social cooperation since one’s
macromoral schema is the default interpretive system" (Thoma, 2002, p. 74)

Duration of the Study

Change takes time. Some may question that 19 weeks of MP
IET was sufficient to observe a change in moral judgment. Studies have shown
that significant change in moral judgment has occurred through interventions of
12 weeks in duration (Bebeau, 2002; Reimer, Paolitto, & Hersh, 1983) and
some in colleges of a semester in duration (King & Mayhew, 2002). The
extensive research on short term interventions and their success in causing
change enables ruling out short duration as a cause of a lack of change in
moral judgment.

Moral Challenge

Cognitive developmental moral theory asserts that
development occurs when people are challenged in their current level of moral
judgment and found inadequate (Power, Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1989). The most
effective method of challenging moral judgment is through dilemma discussion
and role taking exercises (King & Mayhew, 2002). Discussion in small groups
exposes participants to thinking that is different from one’s own. The
challenge of resolving different thought process causes one to restructure the
way one resolves moral dilemmas. It is possible that soldiers current schema of
moral judgment (Maintain Norms) was not challenged and found lacking.Therefore they did not pursue more adequate
moral judgment (Postconventional). In fact, the results of the qualitative data
indicate that both the methods and the perceived changes tend to reinforce and
reflect Maintain Norms moral judgment.

Training Methods

Army IET incorporates methods that place a heavy
emphasis on directives, behavior modification processes such as reinforcement
and conditioning, and repetition and memorization. Such processes have not been
proven effective in the area of moral development and moral identity. The
negative factors and influences that were identified by soldiers in the focus
groups correspond to ineffective methods of moral education. These methods do
not appear to provide a connection between moral judgment, the moral self,
moral opportunities, moral motivation, moral emotions, and moral action. In
other words, soldiers learn what to do, but not when and how to do it. They
learn the Army’s moral code, but not the application of the code. The
components of moral identity appear to be disjointed. The training methods may
not reach into the heart of a soldier to provide motivation to engage in moral
behavior that is consistent with the Army’s code. Training through a system of
rewards and punishments is not sufficient to ensure morally acceptable behavior
(Martinelli-Fernandez, 2006).

Much of the Army’s character education appears to consist
of simply, using the words of Kupperman (2005) “imprinting the messages of a
moral code” onto the minds of Soldiers (p. 211). The use of extrinsic
motivation, and “a public awareness approach to values” (Davidson, 2005, p.
229) fall far short in soldier moral development. The major problem of these
quick change approaches is that they tend to produce moral agents who are fair
weather moral soldiers (Kupperman, 2005). These people can behave morally when
the situation is favorable. But they tend to fail in adverse circumstances.

Moral awareness of organizational values is an important
first step, but it is only a first step, a dress rehearsal for the real event.
The second part of character education must involve gaining understanding of
the principles and foundations for the organization’s moral code (Kupperman,
2005). Coupled with this understanding is practice and experience in behaving
and making decisions base on the organization’s moral code. The key ingredient
in this process is the development of the moral climate of the organization. In
fact, it is this climate that is the heart of character education (Davidson,
2005). In defining character education, Davidson (2005) states, “Character
education is a process whereby individual are constructing character through
the interaction of their existing cognitive structures, novel experiences, and
the influence of those around them” (p. 227). This indicates that character cannot
be indoctrinated from outside a person. An individual must decide who he or she
wants to become and then work on becoming. This definition also indicates that
the main focus of character education is “to create a zone of optimal moral
development” in which leaders, instructors, peers, and experiential learning
through problem solving provide opportunities for people to construct their
character (Davidson, 2005, p. 229).Leaders and instructors guide the reflection of students through problem
solving, decision making, dilemma discussion, and community service so that
students understand the foundations of the moral code and they choose of their
own volition to incorporate the organizations moral code into their construct
of their character. This inductive educational process has been proven highly
effective in character education programs, much more effective than just hoping
that students “catch character by participating in a particular experience” (Davidson,
2005, p. 230).

The requirement of character education to create an
environment in which the individual can construct his or her own character
indicates the incorporation of intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic
motivation. Intrinsic motivation involves the inner drive and desire to act on
the basis of the act’s inherent personal satisfaction. Extrinsic motivation
involves the external rewards or punishments that one receives because of the
act. The Army tends to use a system of rewards and punishments to alter and
modify behavior. The author recently attended an IET graduation ceremony. The
guest speaker, a senior NCO, spoke to the graduates, junior soldiers, about
making the Army a career. The speech was motivational in nature and consisted
of a lengthy outline of the extrinsic benefits of an Army career – benefits of
education, housing, medical care, and job security. Nothing was said about the
inner satisfaction of serving and protecting the nation, of deploying around
the world to defend basic human rights and freedoms, or of fighting against
oppression and injustice, all in order to create a just world where all men and
women can flourish.Extrinsic motivation
is helpful initially. However, motivation must move to higher levels, i.e.,
intrinsic motivation. In fact, there is clear evidence that shows that
extrinsic motivation undercuts character education. Davidson (2005) warns of
the dangers of motivation by extrinsic means since studies have revealed that
the use of “tangible extrinsic rewards for controlling behavior tend to undermine
intrinsic motivation and self-regulation, that extrinsic rewards are less
detrimental if they are not used contingently and if the social context is
oriented more toward support control, and that verbal rewards conveying
information and feedback or affirming competence tend to maintain or enhance
intrinsic motivation” (p. 238).

Military service is somewhat similar to participation in
athletics. Shields & Bredenmeier (2005) in answering the question “Can Sports
Build Character?” respond with a qualified “yes”. However, simply participating
in sports as they are usually practiced does not build character. Their
research shows that those who participate in sports generally have lower levels
of moral judgment than those fellow students who do not participate in sports. Additionally
they state that people who play sports tend to develop a dual morality – one
morality for the sport and another morality for life. Shields and Bredenmeier
(2005) assert that for sports participation to produce character, two elements
are required. The first element is that there must be a “sense of community”
within the team in which democratic leadership is practiced to develop shared
values, norms, and goals to “accentuate the moral dimension of the sport
experience” (p. 133). The second requirement is “the promotion of a mastery
climate” as opposed to a performance climate (p. 133). A mastery climate is
task-oriented wherein one is in competition with self to develop expertise. A
performance climate is ego oriented wherein one is in competition with others.
Shields and Bredenmeier (2005) state

Mastery climates are
associated with participants’ use of effective learning strategies, preference
for challenging tasks, positive attitudes, and the belief that effort leads to
success. Mastery climates nurture an achievement ethics that places value on
the intrinsic quality of the experience. (p. 133)

Culture of the Army

The military is basically a Maintain Norms kind of organization.
At its most commonly experienced level, the military is about hierarchy, chain
of command, rules and regulations, standing operating procedures,
standardization, controlling oneself and situations, and following orders.
Therefore, one would expect that the organization’s personality would have
great influence over the member’s personality. The military prescribes right
behavior through regulations and policies. Reinforcement theory asserts the
reinforcement of appropriate or desired behavior. The methods and content of
IET appeared to reinforce rules-based moral judgment. Higher level moral
judgment was not reinforced. Soldiers were not challenged by Postconventional
moral arguments.

The Four Component Model

Two recent models of moral development provide insight
into the issue of a lack of change in DIT scores but expressed change of
soldiers in focus groups. The first model is the four component model (FCM) proposed
by Rest and his associates (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999). The FCM was
developed in response to extensive and multifaceted number of theories about
moral development. The FCM attempts to synthesize the most prevalent of these
theories. The FCM consists of four intrapsychic elements that work together in
producing moral behavior. The four elements are moral sensitivity, moral
judgment, moral motivation, and moral character. Moral sensitivity involves an
awareness of the moral problem, an understanding of the factors involved, understanding
of the causes and effects of various choices, especially the effects on the
people involved. Moral judgment involves the ability of determining which
choice would be most morally justifiable. Moral motivation involves one’s level
of commitment and personal responsibility to moral values and moral action.
Moral character involves persistence and determination in pursuing moral goals.
The DIT, as mentioned above, is a measurement of moral judgment, one of the
elements of the FCM of moral behavior, and is not a strong assessment of moral
behavior as a whole (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999, p. 2).

Table 2 categorizes the qualitative data according to
the elements of the FCM.

The data in Table 2 indicates limited influences on
soldiers’ moral sensitivity, limited influences on soldiers’ moral judgment,
significant influence on moral motivation, but superficial items related to
moral character. Soldiers’ exposure to moral sensitivity primarily dealt with
being forced to relate to others of diverse backgrounds. Additionally, soldiers
learned much about how their actions affect others through the use of group
punishment. However, there were some significant barriers to their development
of moral sensitivity – the lack of practical application, discussion, and real
world situations involving the Army’s moral code, as well as the superficial
memorization of the code.

Items related to moral judgment were also somewhat limited.
Basic decision making skills were listed by soldiers. But these decision making
skills are not exclusively moral in nature. Also, the negative influences
listed for moral judgment were significant – the rigid structure and rules
eliminated the need for personal decision making; also, the lack of practical
application of the Army’s moral code.

Soldiers listed a large number of items that related to an
influence on moral motivation, i.e., the commitment to and personal responsibility
or moral action. However, soldiers listed only a few changes that were related
to moral motivation. There were significant items listed in both positive and
negative categories. The appearance is that there were just as many
de-motivating items as there were motivating items. Concerning moral
motivation, leaders had a significant impact, both positively and negatively. It
is questionable that soldiers increased in their motivation to act morally.

In the area of moral character (persistence and determination
in moral action), several characteristics are listed. These items could be
moral or amoral depending on the situation. Taken in conjunction with the other
elements of the FCM, it is difficult to assume that the characteristics are
enduring, persistent elements of moral character. The significant positive and
negative items listed for moral sensitivity, moral judgment, and moral
motivation leads one to believe that the items listed for moral character may be
applied inconsistently and not internalized wholeheartedly.

Moral identity

A second model of moral behavior is that of moral
identity (Blasi, 1983, 1994, 2004, 2005; Hart, 2005b; Hart & Atkins, 2004).
Blasi developed the theory of moral identity while searching for a connection
between moral understanding and moral action. Blasi’s self model includes three
elements of moral action – the moral self, moral responsibility, and
self-consistency (Walker, 2004). The moral self refers to the degree to which
one considers moral values to be an integral part of one’s identity. Moral
responsibility is the sense of moral obligation that one has to act in a given
situation. Self-consistency is the motive to act in a way that is consistent
with one’s moral self. For Blasi, “[m]oral action is intentional action—it is
the result of reasons, reasons that determine its moral quality” (Walker, 2004,
p. 5).

The first level of the model consists of one’s personality
and social structure. These elements are relatively enduring and unchangeable.
One’s capacity for sympathy and empathy, as well as one’s family, culture, and
socio-economic status serves as the foundation for one’s moral identity. Level
two consists of the elements that can be influenced – moral cognition
(judgment), one’s sense of self, and the opportunities that one has to engage
in moral activities. One’s attitudes toward moral issues, moral self-evaluation,
level of commitment to certain values and ideals, and one’s involvement in
certain institutions, organizations, and relationships make up one’s entire
moral identity. As with the FCM presented above, Hart’s model of moral identity
provides insight as to the reason that one’s moral judgment may go unchanged
but other elements of moral identity and moral behavior may change.

The data in Table 3 indicate limited items that deal
directly with moral cognition, superficial elements that deal with self and
identity, extensive opportunities for moral activity, and a heavy influence,
both positive and negative, of leader actions. The items listed under moral
cognition are not exclusively moral, but may primarily be pragmatic in nature.
The lack of moral judgment content is consistent with the lack of change in
moral judgment as presented by the results of the quantitative data.

The area of self and identity identifies several elements
of moral character – patience, courage, selfless service, humility, respect,
and self-control (self-regulation). There are many positive influences that were
identified that would precipitate such positive changes related to self and
identity.However, there are also
several significant negative changes and influences which could neutralize the positive
changes.The results of this
incongruence may be identity confusion or superficial acknowledgement.In short, soldiers may learn what to do and
who a soldier is, but not be fully committed to the identity of a soldier. If
the training content does not clarify the Army values and the leaders do not
consistently exemplify the values, there is decreased commitment to live and
practice the values. This is not to say that soldiers have rejected the Army’s
moral code. It is to say that soldiers have not wholeheartedly internalized that
code.

Soldiers listed a significant number of opportunities
for moral activity. However, the assumption seems to be that simple
participation in such activities will result in the development of moral
character. There does not appear to be a direct relationship between the various
opportunities and moral character. In other words, the opportunities are not directly
used for practice in moral action and moral character development. Leaders are
not taking full advantage of the opportunities to demonstrate how training
events are directly related to the Army’s moral code. This is evident from the
items listed in the opportunities column as related to negative influences.

It is clear that the influence of leaders is the most
significant factor in change or lack thereof. The salience of the
leader-follower relationship is evident in much research. However, the impact
of the leader-follower relationship appears to be mitigated due to the negative
factors that soldiers listed such as the negative, poor example of some leaders
and the lack of direct moral content in training.

The strength of these two models is that they recognize
that moral behavior is not a one dimensional, liner equation. Instead, moral behavior
consists of a complexity of factors, and influences, including the context of
the moral issue at hand.

Summary of Implications

1. The content and methods of MP IET seem to have no
effect on the moral judgment of soldiers. Specifically, MP IET does not
challenge the maintain norms (rules-based) moral judgment to the extent that
soldiers recognize the inadequacy of the maintain norms level and seek the more
adequate moral judgment of Postconventional reasoning.

2. The content and methods of MP IET tend to reinforce
the maintain norms schema of moral judgment, that is, a rules-based approach to
moral decision making.

3. The leader-follower relationship appears to be the
most powerful force for moral education and character education.

4. The culture of the Army tends to serve as a barrier
to developing the kind of moral judgment that is required for future military
operations, which will require greater flexibility and adaptability than a
rules-based approach allows.

5. The FCM and the model of moral identity provide
insight into the development of character education in the Army. Each provides
categories for identification and assessment of the elements of IET that either
serve as supports for or barriers to moral character development. Character
education should include elements that address moral sensitivity, moral
judgment, moral motivation, moral emotion, moral values and commitments, and
moral activities (such as community service) in order to produce soldiers who
are ethical experts.

6. The application of the FCM and the model of moral identity
reveal a significance of items that support and detract from the development of
moral character. This conflict leads one to believe that the Army’s moral code
is not fully internalized through the course of IET. Most likely the Army’s
moral code is superficially acknowledged as valid such that soldiers have a
dual morality. That is to say that they act like soldiers when necessary and
resort to a different morality when the Army’s moral code is not personally
advantageous.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The problem with and the failure of many character
education programs is not with the content but with the methods incorporated in
the program. Most character education programs are based on virtue ethics. Virtue
ethics is not concerned as much with how to act morally but with how to lead a
good and moral life. For Aristotle, people have a purpose (telos) that includes
flourishing (eudaimonia). In order to flourish, one must develop virtues that
enable ethical conduct. Virtues are developed through habit. The downfall of
many programs of character education is the misunderstanding and misuse of the
term “habit.” Aristotle asserted a developmental process whereby individuals
grew increasingly proficient to the point of mastery through practice and
mentorship. However, many current programs of character education use methods that
violate the principles of virtue ethics that Aristotle espoused. Elements of
behavior modification attempt to inculcate virtues through cause and effect
processes (Nucci, 2004). These programs turn character education into a program
of teaching virtues rather than nurturing virtue. These programs become what
Kohlberg called a “bag of virtues.”

Recent history of
character education programs is that they are a reaction against ethical
relativism, that is, the notion that the right thing to do depends on the
situation. Character education programs are about providing a consistent frame
of reference for deciding the right thing to do. Lapsley & Narvaez (2006)
state “The goal of character education, in other words, is less about enlisting
children in the battle against ethical relativism and more about equipping them
with the moral dispositions and skills required for effective citizenship in a
liberal democracy” (p. 270-271). The Army cannot simply focus on training
soldiers to be warriors. Soldiers are also citizens of the nation. Soldiers
must be exemplary citizens (Snider, 2008). Soldiers must be examples of
morality in both war and peace. They must remain true to the values of the Army
and the nation when conducting war. High moral character is necessary since

In the light then of such demanding
moral imperatives as these, it follows that only men and women of the deepest
compassion, clearest sense of justice, and highest integrity would be both able
and willing in time of war to distinguish between justified and unjustified applications
of violence. (Mattox, 2005, p. 397)

Therefore, character education in the Army should be
about equipping soldiers to be experts in an ethical lifestyle and not just
being able to do something ethical periodically or at a moment in time.

There is evidence that demonstrates that moral actions
are highly subjective and contextual. Hartshorne and May (1928, 1929) conducted
studies which resulted in their questioning the existence of character traits. These
studies showed that moral action was dependent on the situation and the
emotional state of the actor.

The Army tends to teach virtues just as it teaches other
combat and noncombat skills, through memorization, repetition, conditioning
techniques, and a system of rewards and punishments. The Army tends to follow
the premise that information automatically results in motivation. That is,
knowledge of what is moral will automatically result in moral action. Research
has indicated that moral judgment is not intrinsically motivational. There is a
gap between moral judgment and moral action. Nevertheless, upon the occurrence
of a moral collapse or failure, the usually response is a class. Following a
suicide there is suicide prevention training. Following an ethics violation,
there is ethics training. Following a sexual assault, there is prevention of
sexual assault training. However, research indicates that increased information
does not promote the desired behavior or prohibit the undesired behavior.
According to the two models mentioned above (the FCM and the model of moral
identity) the mediating factors between moral judgment and moral action/behavior
are moral identity, moral sensitivity, moral character, moral efficacy (as a
result of moral opportunities), and moral motivation. It is on these elements
that character education needs to focus.

Several key principles need to be considered in a
process of effective character development The Eleven Principles of the
Character Education Partnership (CEP) and the seven principles outlined by
Lickona and Davidson (2004, as cited in Lapsley & Narvaez, 2005)) provide a
firm foundation.

CEP’s Eleven Principles.

1.
Core values (caring, honesty, fairness, responsibility, respect) are the basis
for building good character.

2.
Character education programs must use holistic methods that include cognitive,
affective, and behavioral elements.

3.
All school or organization members must be involved in “an intentional,
proactive, and comprehensive way” (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2005).

4.
The school or organization must create a caring and just community and
culture.

5.
The school or organization provides opportunities in which the members are
actively engaged in moral and community service activities.

6.
The content of the curriculum must challenge the member’s moral judgment.

7.
Moral motivation is promoted though “a climate of trust and respect,
encouraging a sense of autonomy, and by building shared norms through dialogue,
class meetings, and democratic decision making” (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2005,
p. 270).

8.
The school or organization leaders and staff must practice the core values.

9.
The school or organization must make character education a long term project by
developing a process of shared leadership.

10.
The character education program must engage stakeholders in both the family and
community arena.

11.
The school or organization “must be committed to ongoing assessment and
evaluation”

Lickona and Davidson’s seven principles are:

1. Make the development of character the cornerstone of the school’s
mission and identity.

2. Cultivate an ethical learning community that includes staff,
students, and parents, who share responsibility for advancing the school’s
character education mission.

3. Encourage the professional staff to form a professional ethical
learning community to foster collaboration and mutual support in advancing the
ethical dimensions of teaching and student development.

4. Align all school practices, including curriculum, discipline, and
extracurricular activities, with the goals of performance excellence and moral
excellence.

5. Use evaluation data to monitor progress in the development of
strength of character and to guide decision making with respect to educational
practices.

6. Integrate ethical material into the curriculum while encouraging
lifelong learning and a career orientation.

7. Treat classroom and school wide discipline as opportunities to
support the ethical learning community by emphasizing the importance of caring,
accountability, shared ownership or rules, and a commitment to restitution.
(Lapsley & Narvaez, 2005, p. 271-272)

The collective value of these principles is that they
focus the organization’s attention on its responsibility to make moral
education an integral element, not a by-product, of the educational
process.Additionally, these principles
are based on current research of the best practices of moral and character
education. Such practices include making students active participants in
constructing their own moral character, not just passive recipients of behavior
modification processes and using moral education practices of dilemma
discussion, role taking, and creating a just community and organizational
culture (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2005).

Moral Identity

Character education should not focus narrowly on traits
and virtues but on the whole person. Character education should address all
elements of the moral identify model and the FCM – moral judgment, moral self,
moral opportunities, moral emotions, moral motivation. Moral identity helps
outline the specifics of living a moral life and helps to explain the cause of moral
collapse (Hart, 2005a; Hardy & Carlo, 2005). Moral identity provides moral
motivation through the desire for self-consistency (Hardy & Carlo, 2005;
Hart, 2005a). “one has a moral identity to the extent that he or she has
actively constructed an identity centered on moral concerns, providing a strong
sense of obligation and commitment to living consistent with these concerns”
(Hardy & Carlo, 2005, p. 244).

When one’s sense of self is based on moral concerns and
ideals and moral values are esteemed highly, then one is said to have a moral
identity. When one has a moral identity, then one is more likely to act in ways
that are consistent with his or her moral concerns and values (Hardy &
Carlo, 2005). It is possible for people to understand moral issues but have low
commitment to those moral issues (Hardy & Carlo, 2005). High commitment to
moral causes results in greater unity between self and moral goals (Hardy &
Carlo, 2005). The greater one esteems moral values and virtues as essential to
their sense of self, the more likely they are to engage in moral action” (Hardy
& Carlo, 2005, p. 252). Moral identity has been linked to moral motivation
(Bergman, 2004).

There is a precedent for focusing on moral identity
within the context of the military. The character education process of the
United States Military Academy (USMA) includes spiritual, ethical, and social
dimensions (Snider, 2007). Army doctrinal publications present three basic
elements of a soldier’s personality – be, know, and do. The character
development of cadets at USMA addresses the “be” element. The process of
character education at USMA begins with the search for meaning and purpose.
This search for “personal truth” is followed by training on the Army
professional ethic. The goal is that personal truth and professional ethics
will result in moral action that is consistent with the Army’s moral code.

Postconventional morality.

The soldiers of the future will be expected to adapt to
an ever changing operating environment. This indicates a need for an ability to
apply principles and for flexibility, not just the ability to follow rules
(Hooker, 2005). Research by Hartshorne & May revealed that most of moral
behavior based on the situational context of the moral dilemma. Hardy &
Carlo state (2005) “the majority of moral action is likely more spontaneous or
habitual” (p. 246). Within the context of a military operation in general or a
battle in specific, there is little time for cognition, that is, engaging in a
moral decision making process. The Army is transforming. The nature of warfare is
changing. The Army is called upon to transition from war fighting to peace
making in a moment’s notice. These factors require a type of moral judgment
that is flexible and adaptable to the ever-changing contemporary operating
environment. There is a need to develop Postconventional moral reasoning that
is based on principles rather than the inflexible, rules-based approach of Maintain
Norms moral judgment.

Soldiers have a
moral imperative not to harm noncombatants, to only use as much force as is
necessary for neutralizing the enemy, to exercise restraint, to minimize risk
to noncombatants, to balance risk to combatants with risk to friendly forces.
As a result, Pfaff (2005) asserts “This moral calculus underscores the need for
professionals who have the education and experience required to maintain the
profession’s integrity by balancing mission accomplishment with moral and legal
restrictions” (p. 419). This indicates that the Army must clarify and train the
kind of moral judgment and action that create moral experts who apply the
principles of the Army’s moral code.

Emphasis on the Profession of Arms

Accentuate the importance of the Army as a profession.
As with every profession, there are certain standards of conduct. A
professional is an expert in the morality, not just in the technical skills, of
his or her field. Someone can memorize all the parts of the body but that does
not make her a doctor. As Bebeau (2002) states, “Professional practice is
predominantly a moral enterprise” (p. 271). Professional education programs
include elements of moral judgment and professional ethics to ensure that
behavior is consistent with professional standards.

One model of ethical education that can be incorporate into
professional programs is Integrated Ethical Education (IEE) (Lapsley &
Narvaez, 2006). IEE centers on three main components: “character as expertise
development, the cultivation of character as the cultivation of expertise, and
the importance of self-regulation for developing and maintaining virtuous
character” (Lapsley & Narvaez,, 2006, p. 281-282). An expert is thoroughly
trained and skilled in the knowledge and application of the procedures of her
profession, as compared to a novice. A person of virtue is an expert in the field
of ethical practice. But ethical expertise, or in Shields and Bredenmeier’s
(2005) terminology mastery, is not
just about doing. It is about being. Ethical expertise includes heightened
proficiency in such elements of moral behavior and moral identity, such as those
components of the FCM (ethical sensitivity, ethical judgment, ethical
motivation, and ethical action).

According to Lapsley & Narvaez (2006) the
development of ethical expertise requires two elements: “First, it must be
constructivist; second, it must attend simultaneously to cultivating expertise
on two fronts: conscious, explicit understandings and intuitive, implicit
understanding. Participants in IEE must engage active thought processes when
being challenged with new moral information. Participants must restructure
their thought processes according to more adequate moral reasoning.

Lapsley & Narvaez, (2006) advocate a method of
instruction called coached apprenticeship, in which the instructor serves as a
kind of mentor who provides examples of ethical expertise and detailed
explanations as to the reasons for certain actions and decisions. The value and
effectiveness of coached apprenticeship is in its use of a balance of methods:
direct and indirect, imitative and transformative, a concern for process and
content, and addressing the participant’s conscious and intuitive thought processes.
As Lapsley & Narvaez state “Teaching for ethical expertise requires coached
apprenticeship and extensive practice in multiple contexts” (p. 282) as one
moves from novice to expert. This process is accomplished through educational
activities that move along four levels: (a) familiarization to the examples and
patterns of moral behavior, (b) detailed study and analysis of prototypical
examples to understand concepts, (c) provide activities to enable participants
to practice concepts and skills, (d) participants integrate knowledge and
skills in a variety of settings and contexts (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2006). Coached
apprenticeship is supported by the qualitative data of this study. Recall that
clearly, soldiers stated that their drill sergeants and leaders had the most
significant impact on their moral values.

The third element of IEE is the cultivation of self-regulation
in order to sustain moral behavior. Self-regulation is the ability to monitor
one’s own behavior-the successes and failures-and adjust as necessary to
fulfill personal goals. The process of self-regulation and the development of
virtues, as presented by Aristotle, include “extensive practice, effort, and
guidance from parents, teachers, and mentors until the child is able to self-maintain
virtue” (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2006, p. 283). In order for IEE to be success,
the practice of self-regulation must occur among the leaders and teachers of an
organization as well as among the followers and students. The leaders must set
the example. This indicates that the entire culture, climate, policies, and
procedures of the organization consist of, and make explicit, relationships
that are caring, ethical, respectful, fair, and just. Specifically, the leaders
and instructors consistently discuss the moral issues that occur in the daily
activities of the organization, the classroom setting, or the training
environment. Education and training should focus on the key question, “Who
should I be?” as contrasted with what someone should do. Responsibility is placed
on the students or the followers to engage actively in the work of building
their own character, rather than being passive recipients of conditioning
processes. In order to develop expertise in an area, one must take the
initiative to be self-directive in constructing the person one wants to become.
Lapsley & Narvaez (2006) summarize by saying, “Ethical know-how must be
trained holistically, as a type of expertise, at first coached, then
increasingly self-directed” (p. 283). Soldiers in the study reported that the
most effective leaders were those who set the example, who practiced the Army’s
moral code, and who demonstrate self-discipline.

The principles of IEE are being used in other areas of
the Army. The development of the professional ethic and moral agency at USMA
includes reflection, guidance by mentors, and a focus on developing moral
self-regulation (Hanna & Sweeney, 2007). Through the guidance of mentors,
discussions of moral dilemmas and the intense examination of actions are used
to reinforce the Army professional ethic. One of the developers of the USMA Cadet
Leader Development System (CLDS), Snider (2008) states, “the construction of
moral development happens best in structured reflection with informed mentors”
(p. 31). Such practices can also be incorporated into Army IET.

The character education process at USMA does not end
with training in moral judgment and moral agency. It also focuses on developing
moral efficacy and expertise. Soldiers must be confident in and have the
ability and motivation to engage in moral action. At the USMA, the primary
method of developing moral efficacy and expertise is through moral triggering events. A moral
triggering event “jolt[s] people out of their complacency and into a period of
deep self-reflection, thus paving the way for exceptional individual development”
(Hanna & Sweeney, 2007, p. 155). Through increasingly intense moral
triggering events, cadets gain confidence and experience in moral action. The
goal of the character education process is the internalization of the Army’s
moral code and therefore the ability to act in ways that are consistent with
the code.

The character development program of I Corps, Fort
Lewis, WA also incorporates the principles of IEE (Van Dyken, 2008). The
program is designed to prepare soldiers for the moral battles of war. The program
includes three elements – instruction on the morality, evil, and horrors of war
through the use of dilemma discussion; discussion of the use of revenge in
combat; and discussion of resources that soldier have for supporting moral
action.

Training Methods

The Army has tended to use a virtue ethics approach to
its character education. However, this use of the virtue ethics approach has
only been in the selection of the virtues to be developed in its soldiers. The
methods of inculcating those virtues are anything but philosophic. The Army’s
methods are extremely directive, mimetic, and oratorical. The mistake that many
character education programs make is that of using non-philosophic methods in
an attempt to inculcate values (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2006).Kant spoke of the need for autonomy when
developing moral character. The best practices of character education are those
that incorporate opportunities for self-direction. Soldiers must have the
freedom to choose to internalize the elements of the Army’s moral code. Change
occurs best when people have the freedom to adopt values that they believe to
be necessary for self-flourishing. The freedom to choose requires
self-reflection. Having selected such values, soldiers must then be able to
rule themselves. Much of the directive approaches of IET are very controlling,
which tend to reduce the personal responsibility of soldiers and increase the
responsibility of leaders to be present to enforce the rules. This fact was
indicated in the study’s focus group’s results.

The ARI report recommended the use of various battle
drills in character education. This method is indirect and assumes that
soldiers will develop inner moral character from the activities. This is
referred to as the hidden curriculum, i.e., the notion that character can be
developed through activities apart from cognition (Power, Higgins, &
Kohlberg, 1989). However, the models of moral behavior and identity lead us to
believe that there must be some direct connection between moral judgment, one’s
view of self as related to certain values, and the opportunities for moral
activity. Therefore, the best character
education programs are those that are direct but not directive, explicit as well
as self-directive and self-constructive.

Dilemma Discussion

Cognitive developmental theory informs that change in
moral judgment requires that one’s current level of moral judgment be
challenged and found inadequate so the one searches for moral adequate methods
of moral judgment. Cognitive developmental theory also informs us that moral
development requires being able to take the role of others, i.e., being able to
empathize and sympathize with others. The specific tool that has been empirically
validated is that of small group dilemma discussion (Bebeau, 2002; Berkowitz
& Gibbs, 1983; King & Mayhew, 2002). Discussions must allow for the cognitive restructuring
of soldiers’ moral thinking, an activity that soldiers must perform on
themselves.Therefore, the discussion
must not be directive, but self-directive, not just informative but challenging,
not impersonal but provide for role taking. (Hart & Carlo, 2005)

Moral Activity

Hart’s (2005b) model of moral identity asserts the need
for moral activity in the development of personal and professional moral
identity. Such activities include institutional, organizational, and relational
opportunities. The use of moral triggering events was discussed above. Such
opportunities for moral engagement must be included in IET. The methods that
are typically used for training a technical task have not been proven effective
for developing moral character. This does not mean to abandon the battle drills
but to assert the need to make the hidden curriculum explicit. There needs to
be open discussion within IET about the moral issues surrounding a moral
dilemma. Moral activity clearly influences moral identity (Hardy & Carlo,
2005).

Leader-follower Relationship

It is clear from both this study and empirical research
that the first line supervisor is the most significant factor in moral
education. The principle of coached apprenticeship mentioned above applies.
Kouzes and Posner (2001) say that studies show that the supervisor’s behavior
is that most influential factor in whether followers behavior morally or
immorally.“Research has shown, for example, that the quality of early
teacher-student relationships can have a strong influence on academic and
social outcomes that persist through eighth grade” (Lapsley & Narvaez,
2006, p. 272). Caring communities, bonding, and mutually supportive
relationships are key elements in character education. “Relationships are
critical to character education, so character education must focus on the
quality of relationships at school” (Berkowitz, 2002, p. 58-59, as cited in Lapsley
& Narvaez, 2006, p. 272). Therefore, drill sergeants must understand that
the quality and characteristics of their relationship with IET soldiers is a moral
issue. The leader-follower relationship has effect on soldiers’ ability to live
a moral life and to make moral decisions in and outside combat. The Army needs
to recognize and drill sergeants need to see themselves as guides along the
character pathway. When it comes to character education, drill sergeants are
not to be experts in indoctrination. Rather, drill sergeants are to be those
who mentor soldiers through coached apprenticeship, who challenge soldiers with
moral dilemmas, who nurture relationship based on the Army’s moral code, and
who model and create a climate of mastery.

Positive Peer Relationships

Positive peer relationships that focus on “equality and
cooperation…provide…the experience of interacting according to the reciprocity
norm…become aware of the consequences their actions have for others” (Hardy
& Carlo, 2005, p. 249). They realize that their actions are constantly
being evaluated by others. So they begin to evaluate themselves. As they
evaluate themselves, they are motivated to act in ways that are consistent with
the image of morality that they want to fulfill. “In short, peer interaction
fosters sociomoral understanding and the development of a sense of moral self-responsibility”
(Hardy & Carlo, 2005, p. 249). Peer relationships provide role taking
opportunities and decision that affects others and the realization of moral
agency (Hart, & Carlo, 2005).This
is confirmed by the focus groups.

Organizational Climate

Effective character education requires creating a
climate for optimal moral development, a mastery climate (Davidson, 2005;
Shields & Bredenmeier, 2005). This climate is described above. Leaders in
the training environment can create such a climate by structuring the learning environment
so that soldiers can actively participate in the process through personal
expression of ideals, adopting shared norms and values, listening to and
respecting others, cooperating with others both leaders and peers, and working
toward common goals. Leaders also create the optimal climate by using leadership
and communication styles that encourage the development of relationships and
facilitates the process of education, not just the transmission of information
or of indoctrination.

Shields
and Bredemeier (2005) assert that a mastery climate includes diverse tasks,
shared authority, recognition of effort in addition to accomplishment, a variety
of group activities, personal improvement and effort as the focus of evaluation,
and flexibility in determining the time required for learning specific skills.
Granted, some of these items pose a problem for military training. However, the
principles that underlie these items can be adapted to create a mastery climate
of optimal moral development. This is not without support from Army doctrine. The
Army’s leadership publication, Field Manual 6-22 (U.S. Army, 2006) states,

A climate
that promotes the Army Values and fosters the Warrior Ethos encourages
learning, promotes creativity and performance, and establishes cohesion. The
foundation for a positive environment is a healthy ethical climate, although
that alone is insufficient. Characteristics of successful organizational climates
include a clear, widely known purpose; well-trained and confident Soldiers;
disciplined, cohesive teams; and trusted, competent leaders. (p. 11-4)

This publication goes on to list the actions that
develop such a climate as including using mistakes as learning opportunities,
developing unit cohesion, honoring moral leaders with promotion, and leaders
who actively solicit feedback on the moral climate of the unit. A climate such
as described above encourages the individual in active participation in the
organizational unit and in creating his or her own character (Davidson, 2005;
Shields, & Bredenmeier, 2005).

Role of the Chaplain

Chaplains have a unique role in moral and character
development. In additional to being spiritual leaders that provide for the free
exercise of religion, they are, by doctrine, charged with advising the commander
on moral issues and developing and executing the commander’s moral leadership
program. The chaplain provides feedback to the command on issues and factors
that influence the moral climate of the organization. Such factors may include
the actions of individuals and command policies. Regarding moral leadership,
chaplains develop activities and training to enhance the moral behavior of the
soldiers within the command. Within the context of IET, chaplains can serve
several key functions. As a moral guide
and mentor, chaplains assist soldiers in clarifying, reflecting on, and
integrating the Army’s moral code. As chaplains visit training sites and provide
instruction, they can incorporate the principles of dilemma discussion, role-taking
activities, and morally challenging exercises (triggering events) into their
interaction with IET soldiers. Chaplains can engage soldiers in moral
discussions that focus on the application and internalization of the Army’s
moral code. These engagements can either be planned as part of a training event
or impromptu as soldiers are eating a meal in the field or cleaning weapons.

A second function of chaplains is building the team and
developing unit cohesion. Moral action occurs within the context of
relationships. A strong unit requires trust between its members. A key
precipitating factor of trust is the presence of justice and fairness. Chaplains
are considered the subject matter experts in the area of morale and unit cohesion.
Chaplains can engage IET soldiers in discussion and instruction regarding the
requirements for and necessity of strong unit cohesion. This instruction would
involve exploring fairness, justice, and respect in daily interaction with
others.

A third function of the chaplains is that of setting the
example. Chaplains, although noncombatants, share the hardships of military
service with the soldiers they serve. Chaplains go where the soldiers go. As
they are present with soldiers, chaplains demonstrate how a soldier lives a
good life, makes moral decisions, fulfills moral obligations, and exercises self-regulation.

The recent movement to eliminate chaplains as ethics
instructors in officer branch training schools is disconcerting. The notion
that ethics can be taught through distant learning exercises will prove to be
inadequate. Moral expertise cannot be developed through the imparting of
information alone. Because of a chaplain’s unique training and perspective on
matters of morality, the role of the chaplain in character education is essential.

Summary of Recommendations

1. Incorporate all three elements of level two of the
model of moral identity into training: moral judgment, sense of self, and moral
activities. Promote a clear description of the expected moral identity of the
soldier as a moral agent.

2. In the area of moral judgment, set a goal of
developing Postconventional moral judgment among IET soldiers by incorporating
dilemma discussion and role taking opportunities that will challenge soldiers’
maintain norms level of moral judgment.

3. Incorporate the three elements of IEE into IET:
nurturing character as ethical expertise; cultivate ethical expertise through
self-constructivist methods that include both conscious, explicit, direct
training and intuitive, implicit, indirect training (such as coached
apprenticeship); and self-regulation through a mutually supportive and caring
organizational culture.

5. Adopt the premise that leadership is a relationship
of trust, mutual support, example, and mentorship.

6. Create a culture in which peer relationships are
characterized by service.

7. Create a climate of optimal moral development, aka., mastery.

SUMMARY

The Army continues to transform itself to meet with the
changing face of the threat and nonconventional warfare. Organizational
structure, weapons systems, and tactics have changed to meet the changing
threat. Individual soldiers have increased firepower in their hands. Soldiers
are experiencing multiple deployments and significant critical incident stress
wear down cognitive thinking including moral judgment. As a result there are
increased opportunities for moral collapse. What is required is increased
flexibility and adaptability to transform from a fighting force to a
nation-building force. With these changes, the Army must also ensure that
soldiers are prepared morally to meet the challenges of contemporary military
engagements. Modularity requires a change in moral philosophy and character
education. We should be concerned not only with what should be done, but also
how to encourage people to do what should be done.

As the Army
transforms, it must consider the type of moral culture that is required for
future military operations. Such future operations will require leaders and
soldiers

who know how to think, who have
internalized the Army values and the warrior ethos, and who are flexible,
adaptive, confident, competent, and self-aware . . . who can control their
emotions and can analyze situations on the fly in order to make the right
decisions at the right time. (Brinsfield & Baktis, 2005, p. 483)

We cannot assume that soldiers will act morally if they
understand the Army’s moral code. That is, understanding information ensures
action. We must take the next step and not just inform but also motivate. We
must encourage soldiers to internalize the Army’s moral code and make the code
an integral part of their identity. We must nurture soldiers’ moral judgment
beyond a rules-based approach to an adaptable, principled approach. We must get
beyond the practice of simply establishing and enforcing rules in a causative
manner. We must take character education to the next level. In the words of
Davidson (2005), “The core of morality is respect, which requires character
education that is done with students,
not to them” (p. 227)

Ferrari, M., & Okamoto, C. (2003). Moral
development as the personal education of feeling and reason: from James to
Piaget. Journal of Moral Education, 32(4), 341-355. Retrieved
Thursday, February 22, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Grossman, D. (1995). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and
society. New York:
Little, Brown, and Company.

Hanna, S. & Sweeney, P. (2007).
Frameworks of moral development and the West Point experience: Building leaders
of character for the Army and the nation. In Matthews, L., Ed. (2007). Forging the warrior’s character: Moral
precepts from the cadet prayer. Sisters, OR: Jericho, LLC.

Kilner,
P. (2005, January). The military ethicist’s role in preventing and treating
combat-related, perpetration-induced psychological trauma. Paper presented at
The Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics, Alexandria, VA.